• US state politicians, led by Senator Ted Cruz, have come out in support of anti-CBDC bills to prohibit a direct to consumer Federal Reserve-issued CBDC.
• South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem vetoed House Bill 1193 which would amend the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code in the state.
• The response to House Bill 1193 did not consider the full respects of the changes to the Uniform Commercial Code, and could potentially benefit Bitcoin.

Ted Cruz Leads Push for Anti-CBDC Legislation

Texas Senator Ted Cruz has joined a growing group of politicians who have come out in support of anti-CBDC bills, reintroducing legislation to the Senate that would prohibit a direct to consumer Federal Reserve-issued CBDC. This trend was seemingly kickstarted by Congressman Tom Emmer’s “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act,” a bill that would prevent any Federal Reserve issued digital currency from being used directly by consumers.

South Dakota Governor Vetoes Pro-Bitcoin Legislation

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem vetoed House Bill 1193, which would have amended the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code in the state. The governor argued that these changes could be seen as bringing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) into money definition, and expressed her concern over this development.

Florida Declares Itself a CBDC Free State

Following this, Florida Governor Ron Desantis held a press conference at which he declared Florida shall be a CBDC-free state. Yaël Ossowski at Bitcoin Policy Institute expressed caution about this stance, noting how House Bill 1193 could actually have been beneficial for bitcoin if it had been taken into consideration properly. He suggested that instead of using an anti-CDBC stance as “a litmus test” for conservative politicians, they should focus on more relevant regulations regarding Central Bank Digital Currencies instead.

House Bill 1193 Could Benefit Bitcoin

Ossowski described how House Bill 1193 when taken into consideration properly expands definitions and protections for Bitcoin and creates legal mechanisms recognizing self custody and protocol inclusion in traditional lending, insurance and commercial transactions. He suggested that it is important to make sure policies are not implemented that block bills which are designed to benefit Bitcoin while also preventing CDBCs from gaining traction in their respective states..

Conclusion

Overall it appears US politicians are increasingly taking stances against CDBCs based on fears over federal government control of economic freedom as well as surveillance concerns with digital currencies issued by central banks directly to consumers. It is important for legislators across all states to consider both sides when introducing new legislation related to digital currencies such as Bitcoin and CDBCs so that policies do not unintentionally limit potential benefits for cryptocurrencies or facilitate government control over them without due consideration being given first.